Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93137 Case Number: AD9324 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: J. LYONS AND COMPANY (IRELAND) LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC181/92 regarding a grading claim.
Recommendation:
5. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find that grounds have been established which would justify
alteration of the Rights Commissioners's Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Rights Commisiner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93137 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: J. LYONS AND COMPANY (IRELAND) LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC181/92 regarding a grading claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the
8th June, 1965. In 1976, the Company carried out a job
grading assessment after which the worker was allocated Grade
4 but with red-circling to allow him retain the wage he was on
which at the time was equivalent to the new Grade 5.
2. In March, 1985, a vacancy at Grade 5 arose and the
worker applied for it. He was appointed to this position at
Grade 5 but as he was already red-circled on Grade 5 pay, he
did not receive any increase in pay. The worker sought the
Grade 5 rate of pay plus his personal rate but the Company did
not agree to this. The matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner and a hearing took place on the 22nd January,
1993. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation BC181/92
found:-
"that the stance taken by the Company represents to me,
a stance that is both reasonable and fair."
The Rights Commissioner for this reason found no basis for
the claim. The worker rejected the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and appealed the matter to the Labour Court on
the 19th February, 1993. The Court investigated the issue on
the 5th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker never agreed that because he held his rate of
pay on a personal basis in 1976 that should he be promoted to
a higher grade in the future this personal rate would
disappear.
2. The Worker's rate of pay prior to the job evaluation in
1976 was the agreed rate for the job and he was entitled to
hold it on a personal basis without it affecting any future
increases resulting from promotion.
3. There is nothing in writing to substantiate the
Company's claim that an agreement was reached in 1976 in
regard to the personal rate disappearing in the event of
promotion to a higher grade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was agreed with the Union in 1976 to red-circle the
worker's pay on a personal basis but that should he be
promoted to a higher grade in the future this personal rate
would disappear.
2. The worker did not pursue the loss of his personal rate
in 1976, but waited seven years until 1991.
3. A new job evaluation carried out in August/September
1992 evaluated the worker's job at Grade 4.
4. The worker is doing a Grade 4 job and being paid at the
Grade 5 rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find that grounds have been established which would justify
alteration of the Rights Commissioners's Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Rights Commisiner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th April, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O./M.H. ____________________________________
Chairman.